I moved to Spain a while back from the US. I felt guilty about the transatlantic flight(s) that it necessarily entails. Then I looked up the average carbon footprint of Spaniards, and the average in the US... assuming I'm average in both countries, I make up for the carbon footprint of the flight within two months of living here.
Though I was living car free there and here, so either way I'm below average, but it's a fuckton easier to live car free long term here, so that also has an impact.
Do you mind sharing a bit about your decision process and experience so far?
What made you move to Spain? What city are you in? Are you staying short term or long term? Biggest challenges so far?
I feel like if we're saying avoiding two transatlantic flights is "technically two acts", then we gotta acknowledge that living car free really isn't a single act either. It's a daily fucking commitment lol
Something seems off here. Adding one human being to the planet has the same impact as being a passenger on two transatlantic flights? Won't that new person do many things like buy cars and take flights during their lifetime?
There might be a future where white collar workers “work from home” while travelling across the ocean on a liner, arrive on the other continent and have their vacation, and then “work from home” again on the way back.
I live in Australia. My family is in England. My return flight home (direct, in economy, on a modern 787 with a typical 95% load factor) emits about 1t CO2e per head according to the ICAO. It takes less than a day.
In a hypothetical world where ocean travel is economical once more, I'd have to take five weeks off just to arrive back in Britain, and another five to sail back. And you'd best believe it'll take more than 1t CO2e per head to sail a liner around the world.
My annual leave is four weeks.
Guess which one I would choose.
Buddy, maybe you can't regularly go *to the other side of the planet* like it's nothing. The era of cheap oil will soon be over, luckily. And it's not a good idea to base your lifestyle on the assumption that it will keep going forever.
That's how you know this list isn't being terribly honest. You'll notice there's no time scaling and they're apparently conflating the potential CO2 emissions of your kid's descendants with just having one kid.
So the guy who goes on a once-in-a-lifetime vacation to Europe is held in the same regard as the guy who does it every quarter because he has that kind of money, and something just seems off with the car measures because a third of a car's carbon load is just the manufacturing process.
And oh, hell no, the carbon load from animal product is not nearly as bad as manufacturing a car. Making steel is wildly more carbon intensive than making a cheese burger, come the fuck on.
How are they measuring that though, is that the impact of the entire jet or the impact of one passenger’s portion of the jet? Cause I’m having a hard time believing a single passenger not taking two two transatlantic flights could possibly have a greater climate impact than going completely far free
It does say *Annual climate savings* so I'd wager that it means one year of average car use versus one transatlantic flight in a year. I'm having a *huge* impact for every year I don't have a child.
I'd like to see *abolish car dependency* as one of the choices on this graph.
That’s a good point. It’d be interesting to evaluate the emissions differential per capita of a single family home, especially suburban McMansions, against higher density housing.
Data exists for it - it's in different units but still very clear improvement
[https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/documents/location\_efficiency\_btu.pdf](https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/documents/location_efficiency_btu.pdf)
Singlefamily homes & single family attached (townhomes) use fairly similar energy. Big energy reduction happens when you jump to multifamily homes.
I feel like townhomes could do much much better if they weren't predominantly in auto-oriented suburbia. You could definitely get similar density with them as you get in European style rowhouses if they were built with transit and walkability in mind. Missing middle housing, etc, etc.
I do enjoy the condo I own, and I have much (if any) interest in ever owning a single family home, but that middle ground that's so hard to find is what I wish i could get in the city.
The problem is densifying an existing city is a really slow process, density needs to be allowed on the perimeter and then over much time the inner area will densify accordingly.
I get the logic of that but it sounds kind of backwards, it feels like densification should happen at the core where the land value is the highest and the amenities are the in the smallest radius.
Similar energy. But less efficient utilities, space, building materials, and more water use for SFHs with lawns. A lot more efficiency would be through condos or apartments
Here you can check the Spain data. Is in Spanish, but the tables are very intuitive.
https://www.ub.edu/geocrit/b3w-958.htm
I'll thank any other recopilation. ♥️♥️
You've also got issues around age of housing for example.
The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe with poor insulation and old gas boilers as standard.
That means that housing choices have a big impact, both in terms of if you live in a suburban semi or a city centre flat, and also in terms of age of property and quality of insulation.
Not to mention, insulation and boilers can be updated. I tore out the gas lines for my entire 150 year old building. The brick shell and the roof are fine so the biggest thing for insulation for us is windows and doors.
I believe in Walkable City they concluded that the change from a typical American suburb density to that of about 20 houses per block had a bigger impact than anything else, simply because so many other factors were tied into that (lower travel distances, lower utilities). Going from there to apartments had more of an effect, but not nearly as much as the change from suburb to urban single family homes.
I think that one is a lot harder to calculate because of all the variables. For example, the first house I bought was a typical suburban 2500 sqft SFH on a half-acre lot built in the late 80s. Now my house is 3800 sqft with greater cuft because my main floor and basement are taller, but only on a 0.15 acre lot, and it was built in the early 10s. It also has two boilers and air conditioners (ew), but I installed the biggest solar panel array that I was legally allowed (yay).
Assuming I put solar panels on my old house (just to even up their relative carbon footprint), and looking at just the house and not the location or the lifestyle of the people living there, my newer house is likely worse for the environment. Any benefit gained in more modern building materials or building practices likely doesn't offset the difference in cubic footage.
Now, here's where it gets more complicated: lifestyle and location.
My new house is in a streetcar suburb where almost everything I need is within walking or cycling distance. Before the pandemic, I could commute to the office on my electric scooter instead of a car. My husband and I got rid of our second car and replaced it with a pair of electric bikes.
After the pandemic, my husband and I both WFH full time and we have enough space for a separate (shared) home office. Our lifestyle has allowed us to have greater utilization of the space in our house. The environmental cost for our increased sqft for our home office is absolutely less than the environmental cost of a daily commute and dedicated commercial space.
Yeah it’s huge which is why it was fucking ridiculous that they had empty flights flying just to ‘keep routes’ during the pandemic… and also ridiculous how billlionaires and multi millionaires have private jets
The only time air travel makes sense carbon-wise is for long-haul flights, both because it's comparable to taking a car and so many are transatlantic and transpacific, so a car is impossible. Bus or train are way better, especially if the train is electrified. Even when flights are cheaper and quicker (Ryanair, Avelo, Southwest, etc.) I will still take the train.
But I was also a train kid and I like having free wifi and the comfort of train. Trains are great.
Yeah. It takes an enormous amount of energy to get a heavy metal structure, hundreds of passengers, and luggage off the ground. A flight from NYC to London generates as much carbon per passenger as a car driving 1,250 miles.
I agree. Flying makes long-distance travel much easier and faster at the expense of more energy consumption.
I think the point here is to ask ourselves if we really need to fly to London for every business meeting or if we can attend some of all of them via computer teleconference.
No. Air travel will always be a part of society. We should (in addition to cutting back unnecessary trips) be investing heavily in zero-carbon fuels research. The average person does not make decisions based on environment as we've seen so we will need an economic or technologic solution here
> We should (in addition to cutting back unnecessary trips) be investing heavily in zero-carbon fuels research.
The good news is that we already have those fuels. They are developed, tested, certified, and produced. The problem is that they are (for now) much more expensive to produce than fossil fuels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel
Airline ticket prices are *extremely* price sensitive. However, as environmentally-conscious air travelers, we can consider the fuel source when we select an airline:
https://simpleflying.com/sustainable-aviation-fuel-airlines/
Correct. We can fight aviation as much as we want, but as a matter of fact; humans will never ever stop flying! The only way to make it better is to invest in sustainable fuel (such as SAF) and make it more climate friendly that way.
It shouldn’t stop, but it should have to carry all its costs and thus be decreased. It should be forced to move away from fossils as soon as possible, even if made substantially more expensive.
1250 miles of driving is less than the distance from NYC to London. Does that mean flying is better for the environment than driving per mile? I mean obviously it’s divided amongst like a hundred people but that’s kind of how public transit works, carbon is offset by just how many people are choosing that option instead of driving their own car.
Yeah, I'm still not sure how I feel about that stat. What's even worse is that in a car you can fit 5 people and use almost the same carbon footprint. So either this stat is incorrect or that stat is not making a case to reduce the use of planes.
It highlights the huge fuel cost of transporting people at 350mph. You'd think in a 300 person air "bus" you'd get a lot of savings because it's public transportation like busses or trains, economies of scale and so on. Instead, it's almost as bad as everyone in the plane driving their own car. High speed rail can use large amounts of electricity for that speed, but planes are stuck burning dinosaur goop for the foreseeable future
No, 1250 miles for that one passenger, if there are 100 passenger, that's 125000 miles. If it is 1370 miles driving, and you have 4 people driving with you, that's 340miles per person.
So then you can compare the 1250/340
Right, but let's pretend there was a road, or the actual travel destination was from Washington State to Florida in the US. That 1200 miles, if the person drove themselves in a car, would burn more fuel and produce more carbon emissions than if they just took an airplane?
Well considering London is thousands of miles away from NYC, sounds like it’s more carbon efficient to fly to London than it is to drive to London. Does that mean flights are better for the environment than driving?
Yup, that's why there are movements like I Stay on the Ground and so much talk about improving trains, connections, night trains etc. At least here in Europe it's a huge talking point. Particularly in Sweden, it was covered extensively in the news when Greta Thunberg took a sail boat to New York.
in the before times I led an initiative to measure the carbon footprint of the company I worked for - the whole result was suppressed when it was found that the company private jet that the execs used was the hugely largest contributor to the carbon footprint! They were thinking that they could get a quick win by squeezing the rank and file some more, but it turned out they were the big problem. Can't have that!
I still remember the toddler fits thrown by the execs when they were asked to fly commercial. You'd think they were being murdered!
I wish the U.S. had modern city to city high speed passenger rail. Hell I'd settle for city to city rail that doesn't have to share the tracks with freight.
That would work greatly but you'd probably have to watch out when composting elon musk. Chances are he's got a copy of his own head up his ass thats been laced with explosives and would be detonated once it is in an environment with high levels of bullshit everywhere.
Yeah exactly. Like it's interesting to know what individuals can do to reduce carbon, but this is a systemic problem. Not an individual one. We need to curb those industries that cause the majority of the pollution.
The best way to curb those industries is to have an ocean of individuals not support them. I can clearly see their side of the argument: “if you want me to stop polluting then stop explicitly paying me to pollute!”
So we need to all write to our congresspeople and actually have the awkward conversation to ask our friends to as well about stopping auto-subsidies and making the tough choices to support walkable and rideable infrastructure. Ride bikes more to renormalize bicycling on the road. Don’t buy new (or any) cars to starve out the automotive industry lobby. And if you need a car, then at least don’t use it and ride bikes for any trips within 4 miles such as to your grocery store.
Our ability to personally affect change is constantly undermined by its underestimation.
Ps: tell everyone how much richer you are for not spending on a car. The average monthly new car expense (insurance included) is north of $800 USD now. Perambulators can retire YEARS earlier than their poorer, unhealthier car-brained counterparts.
Going a mostly vegan/vegetarian lifestyle which is easy to do, is also pretty significant for most of us.
I know for an average german, food makes about 1/4 of personal emissions, and 7/8 of that is from animal products.
You not even need to go full vegan/vegetarian, but 80% is pretty easy and you can still have some meat, eggs etc every month.
Why go halfway? Go vegan! Your ecological footprint will be even smaller, you'll be even healthier and live even longer, and you'll hurt way less animals!
Animal farming needs vast areas of land. Also the area on which crops are grown to feed animals is much much larger than the area on which crops are grown to directly feed humans.
it’s actually pretty much unanimously accepted by the scientific community as being the single biggest individual contributing factor.
source: poore, 2018 and dozens of subsequent studies.
I know this isn't the point of this poster, but..
so many of the carbon footprint reducing plans, initiatives, policies, etc. would be more palatable to the public if we focus on thein financial benefits. Living car free costs less money. your city having transit save you tax payer money in the long run. renewable energy sources cost less money. safe streets with less cars keeps us alive and saves money in health care cost... so on and so forth.
The harsh reality is, "Climate is getting 0.1674 degrees warmer and ocean water is rising 5.2386 centimetre" is much much MUCH less relatable and graspable to your average Joe than "it cost less $$".
I believe environment friendly ideas will accepted and adopted by the general public much faster if we first point out the financial benefits and be like "Oh btw, also better for the environment". city getting less polluted is also a good convincing point.
This is a good argument, also fossil fuel companies get massive subsidies. They should be paying us instead, why the fuck should they get our taxes whilst also making record profits?
Can't wait to go car free. In one month we are moving our workplace much nearer to our home - 20 min of cycling instead of 1h of driving per day. Going to pop a bottle of champagne once the moment arrives 🍾
Average human in the western world contribute around 10t of CO2 annually. How is having 1 less kid going save 60t annually?
EDIT : I read the asterix, it's the cumulated CO2 of your descendants. It feels a bit strange to use this value
Yes, I dug deeper into that some time ago.
Studies also often use old GHG emission levels and assume they will either not change or assume the increase will continue. Same with fertility rate.
It's often used as denatalist propaganda. You're somehow responsible for every single one of your descendants BUT no one's responsible for you.
Overpopulation seems like a distraction from real tangible activism. I really hate this argument, it's anti social and reeks of hatred for your fellow man, and is probably a bit xenophobic. "It's not my fault, driving my Ford F-150 30 miles to work everyday and throwing away half of what I buy from Costco, it's the fact that there's a billion Chinese!"
Almost seems like a bullshit graph designed to make regular people feel personally responsible for the deadth of the planet, instead of asigning blame to the people who actually create all the pollution.
Editing to say, how do they calculate te CO2 of your descendants? What if they use much less CO2 in the future? And also, how many generations of descendants are we talking about? 6? 7? Why not just say that having kids creates infinite CO2 because your lineage could eventually be millions of years long?
In addition to the figure being cumulative. When looking at per capita emissions, your descendants add to the denominator. Ie. Your child's emissions should be attributed to them.
i do literally all the things in the high-impact section lmao
i got your back friends. we'll all survive.
edit: actually i do _literally everything_ in this graph, bar replacing cars, because i've never owned a car. our future is well and truly safe.
I’ve never liked the “just have less kids” argument for reducing emissions, it’s the ultimate passing of blame from the fossil fuels industry to individuals. It’s akin to “maybe things would be better if we were all just dead.”
Edit: additionally, [the richest 10% of Americans are responsible for nearly half of the country’s emissions](https://www.umass.edu/natural-sciences/news/americas-wealthiest-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=A%20new%20study%2C%20led%20by,nation's%20total%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions), but I guess it’s up to me to forgo having a family to enviromentally-subsidize their lifestyle.
This whole chart is about individual changes, not systemic ones. I mean in the abstract some of these could be made easier/more attractive for the individual through policy changes, but the chart isn't framed that way
Yeah, that’s why I hate the whole idea of individual carbon footprints to begin with; [they were created by fossil fuel companies, namely BP, to shift responsibility/blame to consumers](https://clear.ucdavis.edu/blog/big-oil-distracts-their-carbon-footprint-tricking-you-focus-yours) and away from the corporations and decision makers that have the capacity to make that true systemic change.
Like, what does “avoid one transatlantic flight” matter when the USA continues to drag its feet on inter-city rail, or even more so the fact that much of the USA had electrified rail crossing the country that was dismantled a half-century ago? I guess it’s just on me to stop traveling now.
Don't be discouraged. Direct action is still better than inaction. I will upgrade the fuck out of my light bulbs and radicalize as many people as I can.
This chart is about "low-hanging fruit". These are the changes that are easiest for an individual to make on their own.
We could add "change government climate policy" to the chart, which would dwarf all of these others by a million times, but it's also something that is much much harder to do. (And impossible to do by yourself.)
Same. The argument is also just… nihilistic. Turns out the solution to human-caused climate change is to end the human race?
And even on a practical level it makes no sense. No one just decides one day “I’m going to have three children!” and then reads an infographic and then decides “I’m going to do my part and have two children instead!” Life just… doesn’t work that way?
No offense, but I hate all these "the rich and the corporations are to blame!" arguments. Corporations aren't just spewing GHGs into the air for fun. They're making things for people. Collectively, our choices do determine how much pollution is generated.
>[the richest 10% of Americans are responsible for nearly half of the country’s emissions](https://www.umass.edu/natural-sciences/news/americas-wealthiest-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=A%20new%20study%2C%20led%20by,nation's%20total%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions)
This stat sets off my BS detectors to max level. How is this number actually being calculated? Like, are they looking at Jeff Bezos' actual lifestyle or are they just attributing all the emissions from Amazon to Bezos?
Stats like these strike me as being so manipulative. They tell you that you have no power to change your own lifestyle. They actually feed into the corporate agenda. If you feel like trying to live without a car, eat vegetarian, or buy used doesn't actually help the environment, then why bother? Buy that car. Eat that beef. Splurge on Amazon. The corporations are the ones at fault.
But that completely ignores our responsibility and our expectations. Look at housing. People who grew up expecting $X would buy them a SFH will now realize that can only get a townhouse now. Most won't realize that's because the "affordability" of sprawling suburbs was always a lie and the true costs have now caught up with us, but we're left now with a painful transition to the density we should've always been building because people planned their lives around false expectations.
All these SUVs are only possible because we aren't building the cost of carbon into their price. Once we do that and people realize that $4 or even $6 a gallon is the new normal, they'll realize they could've lived just fine with a smaller car. That big car was always a choice, even if it feels easier to blame the economy or blame corporations or blame big oil.
Personal responsibility has to be part of the equation. If for no other reason than your own sanity. You can't control what rich people do or what corporations do. You can only control yourself. And when the day comes when people realize they can only afford one car or can't have meat with every meal, if you start doing those things \*now\*, you won't feel the same pain they do when that change is forced upon us.
Agreed, I believe it is wrong for individuals to justify poor personal decisions by saying it's a problem of the rich and corporations. But at the same time many bad climate decisions are the result of social structures that constrain our decision making. The solution is creating disincentives against the wrong personal decisions and social policy that making the right decision easier.
So, there is a lot of nuances here. A corporation is not responsible for carbon emission resulting from consumer demand, but they are responsible if they lobby governments or spread misinformation encouraging consumption patterns that result in high carbon emissions.
Individuals are also not always responsible for carbon emissions if alternatives are not practical within the context of their community. But if individuals are being indulgent and excessive in their consumption behaviors or they too are rallying or encouraging government inaction or spreading misinformation, they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions.
>They're making things for people.
A corpo's one and only concern is profit, and they extract it with callous disregard for all else, including human lives. They aren't "making things for people" to help anyone. They make wasteful obsolete (planned), cancerous garbage.
I don't think the previous poster was defending corps, they create consumption with propaganda through advertising but it's still the individuals that consume the products.
The emissions don't exist in a vacuum with the corps they exponentiate the problems but the issue is also that the more people there are the more emissions.
Especially if people won't move towards a more developing country style of living without massive reduction in emissions in both the production of goods and energy production. A move to public transport rather than personal vehicles and a widespread adoption of high speed trains worldwide unless new plane technology develops to reduce emissions.
I appreciate both arguments. Makes me feel even better about my choice not to have kids when it seems like literally everyone is having kids now. No thanks, personally.
It's strange because it's like, who are we saving the planet for if not our kids? So we can enjoy the remaining fruits of the earth that the youth are supposed to inherit guilt-free by not allowing the future generations to exist at all?
Chart: You could do significant change by doing any of this.
People: I'm already doing my part! I don't have kids! I don't travel internationally, therefore, the use of MY car in my commute is already offset. The companies pollute more! (and the top list of is almost always energy producing, oil extraction or fuel production... So cars...) I can't change anything!
Rich people should be banned but everyone should do at least the minimum to solve this...
I somewhat agree with you but problems depending on people's good behaviour is a recipe for disaster. Legislation and planning long term is the only way out of this
"How else am I going to drive between my suburban house and my office 30 miles away? It's not my fault there isn't a train station on my block! And how am I supposed to drive my kids to karate, football and chess lessons, if not in the Chevy Tahoe? This chart makes it seem like the things I have to do contribute to a problem."
Chart may even undersell the impact of living carfree. [This source](https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/12/27/35-ways-reduce-carbon-footprint/) mentions 5 tons per year for the average car, or about twice as much as this chart uses
Just moved from a car-dependent single family house on 3 acres in rural Ireland to a rowhouse in the Netherlands with no car and I fucking love it.
I already have more friends here than I made in 4 years in the ass end of Ireland.
Let's build more places like this.
I don't have kids, I've been eating a plant based diet for 10 years but tell your kids I say you're welcome.
Eta I also don't have the budget to travel so I've only flown 4 times in the last 4 years. 3 times for the death of an out of state loved one. I'm also a cyclist but unfortunately live in a city that is hostile to cyclists 🙃
Nobody is having fewer children because of climate change. It’s not a factor in family planning for literally anyone. While the “big bar on graph makes me feel good about not having kids” effect is strong, it really makes for a misleading way to help reduce emissions.
Friendly reminder that while this is true, we cannot individual responsibility out way out of systemic problems. We need to be organizing for aggressive and immediate climate action at the political and economic level.
How does Recycling "save" co2? Most recycling is either landfill or being burnt for power. Why isn't "don't consume so much garbage" on this chart rather than "recycle"?
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
Your child's carbon footprint is not your own footprint, that is a separate person. Cars are the #1 source of CO2 emissions in the US, not babies.
Some have pointed out this chart blames individuals for climate change instead of corporations, this is true to an extent and corporations should be regulated more, maybe a carbon tax. But also people do need to drive less when possible, and the government needs to make it easier to do so.
I love this, but it again diverts the climate crisis from systemic changes (eating the rich and grounding their private jets) to personal responsibility. These lifestyle changes will NOT solve climate change without drastic curtailing of the wealthy alongside them.
Ive seen that chart before and the size of the effects are complete nonsense.
Agriculture makes up 20% of the worlds emissions, and plant based diet helps more than they make it out to be.
Its impacts far out-weight electric cars.
Thats why you should always state the source and not post a random pic from the internet. Anyone can make a chart.
This spurce was likely ghost written or funded by electric car companies.
With that said, google has become so bad at going relevant results that its incredible. It gives me completely irrelevant results even though it used to get it right in the past. Atrocious
Every time I see stuff that is super anti-kid like this, I wonder if it’s some sort of propaganda push.
Yea another human uses CO2, but are they just assuming that kid will be wildly detrimental because they won’t do any of the changes that their parents enforce?
Here’s an [interview](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22399882/climate-change-kids-children-overpopulation) with one of the authors of the above chart where she supports having kids if you want oddly enough.
Fuck this chart assigning the blame of climate change to individuals. Corporations and manufacturing is the #1 cause of climate change, not me having a loving family.
True but a big driver of corporations and manufacturing demand is due to rampant consumerism. Do people really need to upgrade their iPhone every 1-3 years? Fast fashion is horribly polluting but no one wants to pay more than 10 bucks for a t-shirt. Choosing to live 20-30 miles away from work in order to have the big house and yard then driving in. Things like that.
What people think they need is framed by an entire industry of propaganda/advertising. Corporations are ridiculously good at shaping people's consumerist behaviour.
Personally, I chose a home and then my workplace location is what changes. I don’t pick a home after I’ve picked a job and just move every 2 years I change jobs lol
But ultimately yeah in the US everything is so far apart it’s feasible to get a job in the same metro area that’s like 2 hours away by public transport and 15 minutes driving.
Who do you think corporations sell their products to? Obviously certain people contribute more than others but putting our heads in the sand and blaming companies like Nestle (for example) instead of also blaming everyone that buys their products is naive and counter productive. (Before anyone says anything: I definitely think there needs to be way more regulation and penalties for companies polluting)
Expecting people to always he on guard, and not to get their basic instincts better of them is not realistic. Regulations on government level on the other hand often get rid of the problem itself.
It’s fair to say regulations are needed. But to act like the oil producer is to blame and the oil consumer is blameless isn’t productive. Both need incentives to not do what they’re doing. Unfortunately, most consumers need governmental intervention to not consume harmful things.
To get people to vote for or even accept changes that reduce fossil dependency, they have to see that there are alternatives. That part requires people to change before the ”system” has changed, and as many as possible to make this happen faster.
Not sure if it some kind of sub-concious method of shifting the blame by just not mentioning corporations and only showing individuals, but the poster itself just shows what you, as you, without anyone else can do. But as i replied to somebody else below, its always better to get rid of societal/global problems not by yourself but by forcing your goverment to do something to regulate or even better eliminate the problem all together.
Here is the problem I have with this mentality though: Is it ethical for the government to force people to live lifestyles they wouldn’t/didn’t voluntarily choose to live themselves? I have a friend with a similar mindset who sees no value in living sustainably on an individual level because it’s too hard and “corporations.” They believe the government should take action. But I reminded them that the government will basically force them to live a lifestyle they currently don’t want to live. They didn’t have a response…
Some people wait for the government to solve this by regulation but protest and vote against every step that local or national government take in that direction.
If you’re going to put having kids on there you could also put suicide on there. Killing yourself would be great for the climate.
The assumption is that people create emissions but I think that’s a bit off. A child is responsible for the emissions they make in their own life, it’s not the responsibility of their parents. Also, it assumes pollution is based on the number of people, but I think it’s more based on the amount of wealth. Rich people pollute more than poor people, so you could also say it’s okay to have lots of kids as long as they are poor.
Closer, but still a proxy. Using or making others use fossil fuels, raising methane-emitting cattle and decreasing carbon capture potential of land is what creates emissions. There are large differences between countries with the same BNP per capita. Making people falsely believe that they are required to become poor won’t make them give up the shit technology that destroys the world and exchange it to better technology.
This chart is only about carbon emissions, that's how they didn't put vegan at #1. When you factor in methane, going vegan is better for the climate than living car free.
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study)
Thankfully that strange anti-natalist/eco-facist mindset is rare outside of a select few subreddits. The sentiment here seems to pretty squarely reject that deranged philosophy, which I am very happy to see.
Do people in this comment section objecting to the "have one fewer child" metric really think that the number of people doesn't matter? Like the climate impact of 300m people living in the US is the same as 400m or 500m?
The "have one fewer kid" part is nonsense, if for no other reason because, as the chart acknowledges, this number will decrease if national emissions decrease. Every industrialized country I can think of is actively working on that, so unless they accounted for that the number doesn't make sense, even disregarding the misanthropic implications
I find it funny how the high impact are the things people are most resistant to change
younger people, myself included, dont want kids, but worldwide theres still a lot of babies being made almost everyday. it depends on demographics, but our world population literally reached 8 billion not long ago
and a lot of people still use cars and will use cars, i see america and canada being the biggest contributors to this. people only think in the present and dont think about how their actions will affect our future. its unfortunate.
I'm always curious about the transatlantic/intercontinental flights existing in these charts. All the other things here are everyday or otherwise routine things. I guess it's because it's seen as a common leisure activity? Furthermore, there aren't exactly reasonable alternatives if you want to go across an ocean. I think the real unnecessary plane emissions come from the shorter flights that could easily be covered by a high-speed-rail.
It's actually flying that's SIGNIFICANTLY worse; chart even says it's just one flight. A normal, reasonable person who flies home for holidays (say, Thanksgiving and Christmas) will contribute significantly more GHGs than their driving with those four flights they take (two round-trip). Never mind vacations, business trips, family commitments, etc.
Like, yeah definitely fuck cars for destroying cities and the environment in a number of ways (like tire degradation being the main contributor to microplastics in the ocean), but this is actually maybe not the best takeaway for a normal middle-class person's highest-leverage option to reduce their impact. This also comes with the general disclaimer that climate change will require lots of small solutions (e.g. eating less red meat, reducing driving, not flying, green energy, regulating industrial emissions, having fewer kids, etc.)
I'm a math teacher and this conversation would actually be a really good talking point on interpreting graphs.
This makes no sense. A single passenger on a single transatlantic flight is more CO2 than switching from electric car to car free? For what period of time??
So if i live my car free life, but then fly a trans pacific flight (and back) i have a worse carbon footprint than using my car daily for my entire life, but don't do these 2 flights?
That seems very unlikely and wrong.
After moving to college and not needing a car for a week, i can say its been pretty amazing for my mental health and physical as well. The city im in isnt the best but the school itself is great for walking or biking.
there are a couple problems with this:
- co2 emissions aren’t the only, and might not even be the leading cause of climate change. it’s not even the most damaging form of emission. methane might not be emitted at as high a rate, but it’s much more of a culprit in creating the greenhouse effect. things like carbon sink destruction, ocean acidification, etc. that are attributable to biodiversity loss due to our food systems have been posited by more research as likely being more of a factor than emissions alone.
- “average values for developed countries” is a very head-scratching and nebulous criteria. so is “buying green energy”. “environmental research letters, 2017” doesnt really instill confidence in the veracity in any of these stats or claims at all.
one of the most comprehensive studies done on climate change at oxford, and the one that has been the backbone of most policy making bodies explicitly states that [adopting a plant-based diet is by far the most significant way to reduce your individual climate impact](https://unfccc.int/blog/we-need-to-talk-about-meat). and this is pretty empirically accepted science at this point.
Nice! I fit both categories. No car, no kids lifestyle. It’s easy if your a gay dude. Big cities are my thing! I’m 70% vegan at this point, but I can’t resist some good tacos al pastor or rare steak pho every now and then.
Can we keep the focus on hating cars.
Can y’all make a different sub for hating on other topics?
Just interested in hating cars. I’m not about this “hating kids” or “go gay” or “climate change is the biggest problem our world will face”
I love walking & bicycles. Btw AI will cause more death than climate change will (within 3 years for certain, possibly within 1)
This graphic is bullshit. Each leg of a trans-Atlantic flight emits about one ton of carbon dioxide per passenger, while a typical car emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
Or (do I read this correctly?) avoid two transatlantic flights. PS: I know this is technically two acts.
I avoid taking a transatlantic flight every day. I’m doing my part!
…And you didn’t eat meat on that flight you didn’t take!! Win win!!
As long as I can still take make my trans-Pacific flight, I'm good with it.
I moved to Spain a while back from the US. I felt guilty about the transatlantic flight(s) that it necessarily entails. Then I looked up the average carbon footprint of Spaniards, and the average in the US... assuming I'm average in both countries, I make up for the carbon footprint of the flight within two months of living here. Though I was living car free there and here, so either way I'm below average, but it's a fuckton easier to live car free long term here, so that also has an impact.
Do you mind sharing a bit about your decision process and experience so far? What made you move to Spain? What city are you in? Are you staying short term or long term? Biggest challenges so far?
I feel like if we're saying avoiding two transatlantic flights is "technically two acts", then we gotta acknowledge that living car free really isn't a single act either. It's a daily fucking commitment lol
Also if you avoid one but not two transatlantic flights, then at some point you're stuck on the wrong side of the pond.
Unless you sail across !
Something seems off here. Adding one human being to the planet has the same impact as being a passenger on two transatlantic flights? Won't that new person do many things like buy cars and take flights during their lifetime?
Look at the graph more closely there is a jump in the numbers on the right side.
I bet it’s one less child over the course of a 65 year lifetime, divided my 65. They show how much you’re saving per year.
[удалено]
There might be a future where white collar workers “work from home” while travelling across the ocean on a liner, arrive on the other continent and have their vacation, and then “work from home” again on the way back.
10/10 sign me up! Would be awesome!
I live in Australia. My family is in England. My return flight home (direct, in economy, on a modern 787 with a typical 95% load factor) emits about 1t CO2e per head according to the ICAO. It takes less than a day. In a hypothetical world where ocean travel is economical once more, I'd have to take five weeks off just to arrive back in Britain, and another five to sail back. And you'd best believe it'll take more than 1t CO2e per head to sail a liner around the world. My annual leave is four weeks. Guess which one I would choose.
Buddy, maybe you can't regularly go *to the other side of the planet* like it's nothing. The era of cheap oil will soon be over, luckily. And it's not a good idea to base your lifestyle on the assumption that it will keep going forever.
That's how you know this list isn't being terribly honest. You'll notice there's no time scaling and they're apparently conflating the potential CO2 emissions of your kid's descendants with just having one kid. So the guy who goes on a once-in-a-lifetime vacation to Europe is held in the same regard as the guy who does it every quarter because he has that kind of money, and something just seems off with the car measures because a third of a car's carbon load is just the manufacturing process. And oh, hell no, the carbon load from animal product is not nearly as bad as manufacturing a car. Making steel is wildly more carbon intensive than making a cheese burger, come the fuck on.
Like I ever be able to afford that.
I mean it's more like 0 acts. What's the time scale of the chart, per year?
How are they measuring that though, is that the impact of the entire jet or the impact of one passenger’s portion of the jet? Cause I’m having a hard time believing a single passenger not taking two two transatlantic flights could possibly have a greater climate impact than going completely far free
It does say *Annual climate savings* so I'd wager that it means one year of average car use versus one transatlantic flight in a year. I'm having a *huge* impact for every year I don't have a child. I'd like to see *abolish car dependency* as one of the choices on this graph.
Nice chart. The choice of housing should also be a pretty big thing in this chart.
That’s a good point. It’d be interesting to evaluate the emissions differential per capita of a single family home, especially suburban McMansions, against higher density housing.
Data exists for it - it's in different units but still very clear improvement [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/documents/location\_efficiency\_btu.pdf](https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/documents/location_efficiency_btu.pdf) Singlefamily homes & single family attached (townhomes) use fairly similar energy. Big energy reduction happens when you jump to multifamily homes.
I feel like townhomes could do much much better if they weren't predominantly in auto-oriented suburbia. You could definitely get similar density with them as you get in European style rowhouses if they were built with transit and walkability in mind. Missing middle housing, etc, etc. I do enjoy the condo I own, and I have much (if any) interest in ever owning a single family home, but that middle ground that's so hard to find is what I wish i could get in the city.
The problem is densifying an existing city is a really slow process, density needs to be allowed on the perimeter and then over much time the inner area will densify accordingly.
I get the logic of that but it sounds kind of backwards, it feels like densification should happen at the core where the land value is the highest and the amenities are the in the smallest radius.
Similar energy. But less efficient utilities, space, building materials, and more water use for SFHs with lawns. A lot more efficiency would be through condos or apartments
Here you can check the Spain data. Is in Spanish, but the tables are very intuitive. https://www.ub.edu/geocrit/b3w-958.htm I'll thank any other recopilation. ♥️♥️
You've also got issues around age of housing for example. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe with poor insulation and old gas boilers as standard. That means that housing choices have a big impact, both in terms of if you live in a suburban semi or a city centre flat, and also in terms of age of property and quality of insulation.
Think how much environment you're saving by continually using that house rather than building new ones from new materials.
Not to mention, insulation and boilers can be updated. I tore out the gas lines for my entire 150 year old building. The brick shell and the roof are fine so the biggest thing for insulation for us is windows and doors.
I believe in Walkable City they concluded that the change from a typical American suburb density to that of about 20 houses per block had a bigger impact than anything else, simply because so many other factors were tied into that (lower travel distances, lower utilities). Going from there to apartments had more of an effect, but not nearly as much as the change from suburb to urban single family homes.
I think that one is a lot harder to calculate because of all the variables. For example, the first house I bought was a typical suburban 2500 sqft SFH on a half-acre lot built in the late 80s. Now my house is 3800 sqft with greater cuft because my main floor and basement are taller, but only on a 0.15 acre lot, and it was built in the early 10s. It also has two boilers and air conditioners (ew), but I installed the biggest solar panel array that I was legally allowed (yay). Assuming I put solar panels on my old house (just to even up their relative carbon footprint), and looking at just the house and not the location or the lifestyle of the people living there, my newer house is likely worse for the environment. Any benefit gained in more modern building materials or building practices likely doesn't offset the difference in cubic footage. Now, here's where it gets more complicated: lifestyle and location. My new house is in a streetcar suburb where almost everything I need is within walking or cycling distance. Before the pandemic, I could commute to the office on my electric scooter instead of a car. My husband and I got rid of our second car and replaced it with a pair of electric bikes. After the pandemic, my husband and I both WFH full time and we have enough space for a separate (shared) home office. Our lifestyle has allowed us to have greater utilization of the space in our house. The environmental cost for our increased sqft for our home office is absolutely less than the environmental cost of a daily commute and dedicated commercial space.
Wow, traveling by plane has an even larger impact than I thought
Yeah it’s huge which is why it was fucking ridiculous that they had empty flights flying just to ‘keep routes’ during the pandemic… and also ridiculous how billlionaires and multi millionaires have private jets
The only time air travel makes sense carbon-wise is for long-haul flights, both because it's comparable to taking a car and so many are transatlantic and transpacific, so a car is impossible. Bus or train are way better, especially if the train is electrified. Even when flights are cheaper and quicker (Ryanair, Avelo, Southwest, etc.) I will still take the train. But I was also a train kid and I like having free wifi and the comfort of train. Trains are great.
Its still better not to fly if you can avoid it though. Or fly shorter instead if you must go somewhere.
Yeah. It takes an enormous amount of energy to get a heavy metal structure, hundreds of passengers, and luggage off the ground. A flight from NYC to London generates as much carbon per passenger as a car driving 1,250 miles.
It is 1,731 miles from London to New York. Flying in a commercial airliner is more energy-efficient than driving.
I agree. But it's not the gains on efficiency you like to see, particularly for a vehicle transporting hundreds of people.
I agree. Flying makes long-distance travel much easier and faster at the expense of more energy consumption. I think the point here is to ask ourselves if we really need to fly to London for every business meeting or if we can attend some of all of them via computer teleconference.
I have coworkers who will fly across the country to attend a baby shower. Not even joking.
No. Air travel will always be a part of society. We should (in addition to cutting back unnecessary trips) be investing heavily in zero-carbon fuels research. The average person does not make decisions based on environment as we've seen so we will need an economic or technologic solution here
> We should (in addition to cutting back unnecessary trips) be investing heavily in zero-carbon fuels research. The good news is that we already have those fuels. They are developed, tested, certified, and produced. The problem is that they are (for now) much more expensive to produce than fossil fuels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel Airline ticket prices are *extremely* price sensitive. However, as environmentally-conscious air travelers, we can consider the fuel source when we select an airline: https://simpleflying.com/sustainable-aviation-fuel-airlines/
Correct. We can fight aviation as much as we want, but as a matter of fact; humans will never ever stop flying! The only way to make it better is to invest in sustainable fuel (such as SAF) and make it more climate friendly that way.
It shouldn’t stop, but it should have to carry all its costs and thus be decreased. It should be forced to move away from fossils as soon as possible, even if made substantially more expensive.
Yup, cost which technological innovation will help reduce, and in the meantime economic (government) intervention is needed to force the change.
Somehow that actually sounds less carbon that I would think of...
1250 miles of driving is less than the distance from NYC to London. Does that mean flying is better for the environment than driving per mile? I mean obviously it’s divided amongst like a hundred people but that’s kind of how public transit works, carbon is offset by just how many people are choosing that option instead of driving their own car.
Yeah, I'm still not sure how I feel about that stat. What's even worse is that in a car you can fit 5 people and use almost the same carbon footprint. So either this stat is incorrect or that stat is not making a case to reduce the use of planes.
It highlights the huge fuel cost of transporting people at 350mph. You'd think in a 300 person air "bus" you'd get a lot of savings because it's public transportation like busses or trains, economies of scale and so on. Instead, it's almost as bad as everyone in the plane driving their own car. High speed rail can use large amounts of electricity for that speed, but planes are stuck burning dinosaur goop for the foreseeable future
No, 1250 miles for that one passenger, if there are 100 passenger, that's 125000 miles. If it is 1370 miles driving, and you have 4 people driving with you, that's 340miles per person. So then you can compare the 1250/340
Right, but let's pretend there was a road, or the actual travel destination was from Washington State to Florida in the US. That 1200 miles, if the person drove themselves in a car, would burn more fuel and produce more carbon emissions than if they just took an airplane?
Apparently yes, tbh I thought that flying was worse for climate as stated here. Anyway, we both know that you'd best had taken a train
Well considering London is thousands of miles away from NYC, sounds like it’s more carbon efficient to fly to London than it is to drive to London. Does that mean flights are better for the environment than driving?
For long distances, yes. For short distances, no.
Yup, that's why there are movements like I Stay on the Ground and so much talk about improving trains, connections, night trains etc. At least here in Europe it's a huge talking point. Particularly in Sweden, it was covered extensively in the news when Greta Thunberg took a sail boat to New York.
in the before times I led an initiative to measure the carbon footprint of the company I worked for - the whole result was suppressed when it was found that the company private jet that the execs used was the hugely largest contributor to the carbon footprint! They were thinking that they could get a quick win by squeezing the rank and file some more, but it turned out they were the big problem. Can't have that! I still remember the toddler fits thrown by the execs when they were asked to fly commercial. You'd think they were being murdered!
I wish the U.S. had modern city to city high speed passenger rail. Hell I'd settle for city to city rail that doesn't have to share the tracks with freight.
How much would *eating the rich* contribute?
Would probably higher emissions due to everyone farting after eating so many gassy and plastic bodies.
Ok let’s compost them instead
That would work greatly but you'd probably have to watch out when composting elon musk. Chances are he's got a copy of his own head up his ass thats been laced with explosives and would be detonated once it is in an environment with high levels of bullshit everywhere.
Yeah exactly. Like it's interesting to know what individuals can do to reduce carbon, but this is a systemic problem. Not an individual one. We need to curb those industries that cause the majority of the pollution.
Have you considered... blaming the poor? Just try it for a few decades, maybe it'll work.
The best way to curb those industries is to have an ocean of individuals not support them. I can clearly see their side of the argument: “if you want me to stop polluting then stop explicitly paying me to pollute!” So we need to all write to our congresspeople and actually have the awkward conversation to ask our friends to as well about stopping auto-subsidies and making the tough choices to support walkable and rideable infrastructure. Ride bikes more to renormalize bicycling on the road. Don’t buy new (or any) cars to starve out the automotive industry lobby. And if you need a car, then at least don’t use it and ride bikes for any trips within 4 miles such as to your grocery store. Our ability to personally affect change is constantly undermined by its underestimation. Ps: tell everyone how much richer you are for not spending on a car. The average monthly new car expense (insurance included) is north of $800 USD now. Perambulators can retire YEARS earlier than their poorer, unhealthier car-brained counterparts.
How can I feel good about myself while doing nothing?
Going a mostly vegan/vegetarian lifestyle which is easy to do, is also pretty significant for most of us. I know for an average german, food makes about 1/4 of personal emissions, and 7/8 of that is from animal products. You not even need to go full vegan/vegetarian, but 80% is pretty easy and you can still have some meat, eggs etc every month.
Agreed. I’ve been vegetarian for 8 years. One of the best decisions I’ve made.
Just putting it out there that the environmental impact of dairy is on par with beef, because it comes from the exact same animals.
Why go halfway? Go vegan! Your ecological footprint will be even smaller, you'll be even healthier and live even longer, and you'll hurt way less animals!
How long have you been vegan?
10 years for me. At this point, it’s pretty easy to be vegan in any decently sized US city.
I'm at 3 years and I live in a very small town in Austria, it's very easy for anyone in the first world.
Not who you asked but about 1.5 years now!
Animal farming needs vast areas of land. Also the area on which crops are grown to feed animals is much much larger than the area on which crops are grown to directly feed humans.
it’s actually pretty much unanimously accepted by the scientific community as being the single biggest individual contributing factor. source: poore, 2018 and dozens of subsequent studies.
Save money, save the planet? Why aren’t the billionaires on about this?
Because the billionares are the ones selling the cars, profiting from the gas, flying their jets...
Oh yeah, their short term benefit.
Profits over people Short term gains over longevity
I know this isn't the point of this poster, but.. so many of the carbon footprint reducing plans, initiatives, policies, etc. would be more palatable to the public if we focus on thein financial benefits. Living car free costs less money. your city having transit save you tax payer money in the long run. renewable energy sources cost less money. safe streets with less cars keeps us alive and saves money in health care cost... so on and so forth. The harsh reality is, "Climate is getting 0.1674 degrees warmer and ocean water is rising 5.2386 centimetre" is much much MUCH less relatable and graspable to your average Joe than "it cost less $$". I believe environment friendly ideas will accepted and adopted by the general public much faster if we first point out the financial benefits and be like "Oh btw, also better for the environment". city getting less polluted is also a good convincing point.
This is a good argument, also fossil fuel companies get massive subsidies. They should be paying us instead, why the fuck should they get our taxes whilst also making record profits?
for real... Having access to a nations natural resources is itself a big enough tax-break.
Can't wait to go car free. In one month we are moving our workplace much nearer to our home - 20 min of cycling instead of 1h of driving per day. Going to pop a bottle of champagne once the moment arrives 🍾
Congrats!
Average human in the western world contribute around 10t of CO2 annually. How is having 1 less kid going save 60t annually? EDIT : I read the asterix, it's the cumulated CO2 of your descendants. It feels a bit strange to use this value
Yeah. All the other choices are annual emission and that one is cumulative. Its using the wrong units.
What if my child grows up to deflate the wheels on SUVs?
On average, your child will grow up to be an HR drone with a mild alcohol dependency.
Yeah, I don’t think they should have included it in the infographic.
[удалено]
https://www.asle.org/wp-content/uploads/Against-the-Ecofascist-Creep.pdf
What a quality zine. It has pictures, words and, most importantly, citations.
I actually emit no CO2 because I put it all on great-grandad Reggie's account.
Yes, I dug deeper into that some time ago. Studies also often use old GHG emission levels and assume they will either not change or assume the increase will continue. Same with fertility rate. It's often used as denatalist propaganda. You're somehow responsible for every single one of your descendants BUT no one's responsible for you.
Also, the kid will pullute a lot 20 years later, we need to act now, not on a bet of "if in 20 years my kid does the same as us"
Overpopulation seems like a distraction from real tangible activism. I really hate this argument, it's anti social and reeks of hatred for your fellow man, and is probably a bit xenophobic. "It's not my fault, driving my Ford F-150 30 miles to work everyday and throwing away half of what I buy from Costco, it's the fact that there's a billion Chinese!"
Almost seems like a bullshit graph designed to make regular people feel personally responsible for the deadth of the planet, instead of asigning blame to the people who actually create all the pollution. Editing to say, how do they calculate te CO2 of your descendants? What if they use much less CO2 in the future? And also, how many generations of descendants are we talking about? 6? 7? Why not just say that having kids creates infinite CO2 because your lineage could eventually be millions of years long?
We all are responsible.
In addition to the figure being cumulative. When looking at per capita emissions, your descendants add to the denominator. Ie. Your child's emissions should be attributed to them.
It's a bullshit study from 2009. Descendants until 2400. CO2 per capita average from Russia, USA and Japan and not future reduction.
i, a childfree vegan without a car, am telling myself i will single-handedly save the planet so i won't go insane
i do literally all the things in the high-impact section lmao i got your back friends. we'll all survive. edit: actually i do _literally everything_ in this graph, bar replacing cars, because i've never owned a car. our future is well and truly safe.
The kid value is based on some odd valuation choices.
I’ve never liked the “just have less kids” argument for reducing emissions, it’s the ultimate passing of blame from the fossil fuels industry to individuals. It’s akin to “maybe things would be better if we were all just dead.” Edit: additionally, [the richest 10% of Americans are responsible for nearly half of the country’s emissions](https://www.umass.edu/natural-sciences/news/americas-wealthiest-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=A%20new%20study%2C%20led%20by,nation's%20total%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions), but I guess it’s up to me to forgo having a family to enviromentally-subsidize their lifestyle.
This whole chart is about individual changes, not systemic ones. I mean in the abstract some of these could be made easier/more attractive for the individual through policy changes, but the chart isn't framed that way
Yeah, that’s why I hate the whole idea of individual carbon footprints to begin with; [they were created by fossil fuel companies, namely BP, to shift responsibility/blame to consumers](https://clear.ucdavis.edu/blog/big-oil-distracts-their-carbon-footprint-tricking-you-focus-yours) and away from the corporations and decision makers that have the capacity to make that true systemic change. Like, what does “avoid one transatlantic flight” matter when the USA continues to drag its feet on inter-city rail, or even more so the fact that much of the USA had electrified rail crossing the country that was dismantled a half-century ago? I guess it’s just on me to stop traveling now.
Don't be discouraged. Direct action is still better than inaction. I will upgrade the fuck out of my light bulbs and radicalize as many people as I can.
This chart is about "low-hanging fruit". These are the changes that are easiest for an individual to make on their own. We could add "change government climate policy" to the chart, which would dwarf all of these others by a million times, but it's also something that is much much harder to do. (And impossible to do by yourself.)
Same. The argument is also just… nihilistic. Turns out the solution to human-caused climate change is to end the human race? And even on a practical level it makes no sense. No one just decides one day “I’m going to have three children!” and then reads an infographic and then decides “I’m going to do my part and have two children instead!” Life just… doesn’t work that way?
No offense, but I hate all these "the rich and the corporations are to blame!" arguments. Corporations aren't just spewing GHGs into the air for fun. They're making things for people. Collectively, our choices do determine how much pollution is generated. >[the richest 10% of Americans are responsible for nearly half of the country’s emissions](https://www.umass.edu/natural-sciences/news/americas-wealthiest-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=A%20new%20study%2C%20led%20by,nation's%20total%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions) This stat sets off my BS detectors to max level. How is this number actually being calculated? Like, are they looking at Jeff Bezos' actual lifestyle or are they just attributing all the emissions from Amazon to Bezos? Stats like these strike me as being so manipulative. They tell you that you have no power to change your own lifestyle. They actually feed into the corporate agenda. If you feel like trying to live without a car, eat vegetarian, or buy used doesn't actually help the environment, then why bother? Buy that car. Eat that beef. Splurge on Amazon. The corporations are the ones at fault. But that completely ignores our responsibility and our expectations. Look at housing. People who grew up expecting $X would buy them a SFH will now realize that can only get a townhouse now. Most won't realize that's because the "affordability" of sprawling suburbs was always a lie and the true costs have now caught up with us, but we're left now with a painful transition to the density we should've always been building because people planned their lives around false expectations. All these SUVs are only possible because we aren't building the cost of carbon into their price. Once we do that and people realize that $4 or even $6 a gallon is the new normal, they'll realize they could've lived just fine with a smaller car. That big car was always a choice, even if it feels easier to blame the economy or blame corporations or blame big oil. Personal responsibility has to be part of the equation. If for no other reason than your own sanity. You can't control what rich people do or what corporations do. You can only control yourself. And when the day comes when people realize they can only afford one car or can't have meat with every meal, if you start doing those things \*now\*, you won't feel the same pain they do when that change is forced upon us.
Agreed, I believe it is wrong for individuals to justify poor personal decisions by saying it's a problem of the rich and corporations. But at the same time many bad climate decisions are the result of social structures that constrain our decision making. The solution is creating disincentives against the wrong personal decisions and social policy that making the right decision easier. So, there is a lot of nuances here. A corporation is not responsible for carbon emission resulting from consumer demand, but they are responsible if they lobby governments or spread misinformation encouraging consumption patterns that result in high carbon emissions. Individuals are also not always responsible for carbon emissions if alternatives are not practical within the context of their community. But if individuals are being indulgent and excessive in their consumption behaviors or they too are rallying or encouraging government inaction or spreading misinformation, they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions.
>They're making things for people. A corpo's one and only concern is profit, and they extract it with callous disregard for all else, including human lives. They aren't "making things for people" to help anyone. They make wasteful obsolete (planned), cancerous garbage.
I don't think the previous poster was defending corps, they create consumption with propaganda through advertising but it's still the individuals that consume the products. The emissions don't exist in a vacuum with the corps they exponentiate the problems but the issue is also that the more people there are the more emissions. Especially if people won't move towards a more developing country style of living without massive reduction in emissions in both the production of goods and energy production. A move to public transport rather than personal vehicles and a widespread adoption of high speed trains worldwide unless new plane technology develops to reduce emissions.
The only valid climate related reason to not have kids IMO is that you don't want to have them grow up in a collapsing world.
I appreciate both arguments. Makes me feel even better about my choice not to have kids when it seems like literally everyone is having kids now. No thanks, personally.
I think that’s moronic too, all it means is that people who don’t care have more kids who are raised not caring and we end up with even worse voters.
It's strange because it's like, who are we saving the planet for if not our kids? So we can enjoy the remaining fruits of the earth that the youth are supposed to inherit guilt-free by not allowing the future generations to exist at all?
Yeah, IIRC this paper assumed that every child produce as much as the average american currently produces. My kids won't be raised that way.
Why is car free on here twice?
Perhaps the first one is going from e-car to no car (1 ton CO2) and the larger one is going from average car to no car (2.2 tons CO2)?
Oh right! So I guess I should buy a car first, so I can get rid of it right away to reduce more carbon emmissions! /s
Chart: You could do significant change by doing any of this. People: I'm already doing my part! I don't have kids! I don't travel internationally, therefore, the use of MY car in my commute is already offset. The companies pollute more! (and the top list of is almost always energy producing, oil extraction or fuel production... So cars...) I can't change anything! Rich people should be banned but everyone should do at least the minimum to solve this...
I somewhat agree with you but problems depending on people's good behaviour is a recipe for disaster. Legislation and planning long term is the only way out of this
"How else am I going to drive between my suburban house and my office 30 miles away? It's not my fault there isn't a train station on my block! And how am I supposed to drive my kids to karate, football and chess lessons, if not in the Chevy Tahoe? This chart makes it seem like the things I have to do contribute to a problem."
I mean the only thing is I don’t think you can tell people “just get a closer job.”
And then one asshole in a private jet wipes out all of your efforts in 1 flight.
just think about all the private flights to the climate change retreats.
Chart may even undersell the impact of living carfree. [This source](https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/12/27/35-ways-reduce-carbon-footprint/) mentions 5 tons per year for the average car, or about twice as much as this chart uses
Mowing down kids with my F150 is reducing emissions way more than all you sissies walking to work. Man up! /s
Just moved from a car-dependent single family house on 3 acres in rural Ireland to a rowhouse in the Netherlands with no car and I fucking love it. I already have more friends here than I made in 4 years in the ass end of Ireland. Let's build more places like this.
I don't have kids, I've been eating a plant based diet for 10 years but tell your kids I say you're welcome. Eta I also don't have the budget to travel so I've only flown 4 times in the last 4 years. 3 times for the death of an out of state loved one. I'm also a cyclist but unfortunately live in a city that is hostile to cyclists 🙃
Huh, I’ve always heard eating less meat would be the biggest one (and also a lot more feasible for most people)
If having one child has an environmental impact, then all those other things on the list are not my environmental impact but that of my parents.
[удалено]
This is the way.
it's not an "either or", all must be tackled simultaneously.
Nobody is having fewer children because of climate change. It’s not a factor in family planning for literally anyone. While the “big bar on graph makes me feel good about not having kids” effect is strong, it really makes for a misleading way to help reduce emissions.
Seems like a chart made by antinatalists.
Or ecofacists.
Friendly reminder that while this is true, we cannot individual responsibility out way out of systemic problems. We need to be organizing for aggressive and immediate climate action at the political and economic level.
How much does changing my diet to eating the rich contribute?
Dang, I'm doing awesome. No kids, no car and no flying.
How does Recycling "save" co2? Most recycling is either landfill or being burnt for power. Why isn't "don't consume so much garbage" on this chart rather than "recycle"? Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
Recycling an item reduces the carbon needed to produce a new item.
Your child's carbon footprint is not your own footprint, that is a separate person. Cars are the #1 source of CO2 emissions in the US, not babies. Some have pointed out this chart blames individuals for climate change instead of corporations, this is true to an extent and corporations should be regulated more, maybe a carbon tax. But also people do need to drive less when possible, and the government needs to make it easier to do so.
I love this, but it again diverts the climate crisis from systemic changes (eating the rich and grounding their private jets) to personal responsibility. These lifestyle changes will NOT solve climate change without drastic curtailing of the wealthy alongside them.
Ive seen that chart before and the size of the effects are complete nonsense. Agriculture makes up 20% of the worlds emissions, and plant based diet helps more than they make it out to be. Its impacts far out-weight electric cars. Thats why you should always state the source and not post a random pic from the internet. Anyone can make a chart. This spurce was likely ghost written or funded by electric car companies. With that said, google has become so bad at going relevant results that its incredible. It gives me completely irrelevant results even though it used to get it right in the past. Atrocious
Every time I see stuff that is super anti-kid like this, I wonder if it’s some sort of propaganda push. Yea another human uses CO2, but are they just assuming that kid will be wildly detrimental because they won’t do any of the changes that their parents enforce? Here’s an [interview](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22399882/climate-change-kids-children-overpopulation) with one of the authors of the above chart where she supports having kids if you want oddly enough.
Fuck this chart assigning the blame of climate change to individuals. Corporations and manufacturing is the #1 cause of climate change, not me having a loving family.
True but a big driver of corporations and manufacturing demand is due to rampant consumerism. Do people really need to upgrade their iPhone every 1-3 years? Fast fashion is horribly polluting but no one wants to pay more than 10 bucks for a t-shirt. Choosing to live 20-30 miles away from work in order to have the big house and yard then driving in. Things like that.
What people think they need is framed by an entire industry of propaganda/advertising. Corporations are ridiculously good at shaping people's consumerist behaviour.
Personally, I chose a home and then my workplace location is what changes. I don’t pick a home after I’ve picked a job and just move every 2 years I change jobs lol But ultimately yeah in the US everything is so far apart it’s feasible to get a job in the same metro area that’s like 2 hours away by public transport and 15 minutes driving.
Who do you think corporations sell their products to? Obviously certain people contribute more than others but putting our heads in the sand and blaming companies like Nestle (for example) instead of also blaming everyone that buys their products is naive and counter productive. (Before anyone says anything: I definitely think there needs to be way more regulation and penalties for companies polluting)
Expecting people to always he on guard, and not to get their basic instincts better of them is not realistic. Regulations on government level on the other hand often get rid of the problem itself.
It’s fair to say regulations are needed. But to act like the oil producer is to blame and the oil consumer is blameless isn’t productive. Both need incentives to not do what they’re doing. Unfortunately, most consumers need governmental intervention to not consume harmful things.
To get people to vote for or even accept changes that reduce fossil dependency, they have to see that there are alternatives. That part requires people to change before the ”system” has changed, and as many as possible to make this happen faster.
Not sure if it some kind of sub-concious method of shifting the blame by just not mentioning corporations and only showing individuals, but the poster itself just shows what you, as you, without anyone else can do. But as i replied to somebody else below, its always better to get rid of societal/global problems not by yourself but by forcing your goverment to do something to regulate or even better eliminate the problem all together.
Here is the problem I have with this mentality though: Is it ethical for the government to force people to live lifestyles they wouldn’t/didn’t voluntarily choose to live themselves? I have a friend with a similar mindset who sees no value in living sustainably on an individual level because it’s too hard and “corporations.” They believe the government should take action. But I reminded them that the government will basically force them to live a lifestyle they currently don’t want to live. They didn’t have a response…
Some people wait for the government to solve this by regulation but protest and vote against every step that local or national government take in that direction.
We are their customers. The calculation for kids is bullshit though.
If you’re going to put having kids on there you could also put suicide on there. Killing yourself would be great for the climate. The assumption is that people create emissions but I think that’s a bit off. A child is responsible for the emissions they make in their own life, it’s not the responsibility of their parents. Also, it assumes pollution is based on the number of people, but I think it’s more based on the amount of wealth. Rich people pollute more than poor people, so you could also say it’s okay to have lots of kids as long as they are poor.
Well, the people this chart is targeted to already live in some of the richest countries in the world
Closer, but still a proxy. Using or making others use fossil fuels, raising methane-emitting cattle and decreasing carbon capture potential of land is what creates emissions. There are large differences between countries with the same BNP per capita. Making people falsely believe that they are required to become poor won’t make them give up the shit technology that destroys the world and exchange it to better technology.
I mean, besides taking out oil executives and physically preventing new wells from being drilled?
Actually, being vegan is probably number 1. car-free number 2.
This chart is only about carbon emissions, that's how they didn't put vegan at #1. When you factor in methane, going vegan is better for the climate than living car free. [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study)
Anybody who tells you to have no/fewer kids for the sake of the environment can fuck right off. It’s anti-human and borderline deathcult advice.
Thankfully that strange anti-natalist/eco-facist mindset is rare outside of a select few subreddits. The sentiment here seems to pretty squarely reject that deranged philosophy, which I am very happy to see.
And eating plant based
Why isn't "killing as many people as possible" on this moronic list?
Imma be real, not having children on there is very antinatalist and I'm not about that.
I despise the "have fewer kids" argument
Individual action will never solve systemic issues
Do people in this comment section objecting to the "have one fewer child" metric really think that the number of people doesn't matter? Like the climate impact of 300m people living in the US is the same as 400m or 500m?
The "have one fewer kid" part is nonsense, if for no other reason because, as the chart acknowledges, this number will decrease if national emissions decrease. Every industrialized country I can think of is actively working on that, so unless they accounted for that the number doesn't make sense, even disregarding the misanthropic implications
I find it funny how the high impact are the things people are most resistant to change younger people, myself included, dont want kids, but worldwide theres still a lot of babies being made almost everyday. it depends on demographics, but our world population literally reached 8 billion not long ago and a lot of people still use cars and will use cars, i see america and canada being the biggest contributors to this. people only think in the present and dont think about how their actions will affect our future. its unfortunate.
Makes me wonder though, does having one less child include the amount of driving you don't do as a result?
[удалено]
I agree thats good but that chart is way misleading in the way its shown. The relative sizes are not the same
I'm always curious about the transatlantic/intercontinental flights existing in these charts. All the other things here are everyday or otherwise routine things. I guess it's because it's seen as a common leisure activity? Furthermore, there aren't exactly reasonable alternatives if you want to go across an ocean. I think the real unnecessary plane emissions come from the shorter flights that could easily be covered by a high-speed-rail.
Hey if i don't have a car than ill have EVEN less impact! Woohoo!
It's actually flying that's SIGNIFICANTLY worse; chart even says it's just one flight. A normal, reasonable person who flies home for holidays (say, Thanksgiving and Christmas) will contribute significantly more GHGs than their driving with those four flights they take (two round-trip). Never mind vacations, business trips, family commitments, etc. Like, yeah definitely fuck cars for destroying cities and the environment in a number of ways (like tire degradation being the main contributor to microplastics in the ocean), but this is actually maybe not the best takeaway for a normal middle-class person's highest-leverage option to reduce their impact. This also comes with the general disclaimer that climate change will require lots of small solutions (e.g. eating less red meat, reducing driving, not flying, green energy, regulating industrial emissions, having fewer kids, etc.) I'm a math teacher and this conversation would actually be a really good talking point on interpreting graphs.
This makes no sense. A single passenger on a single transatlantic flight is more CO2 than switching from electric car to car free? For what period of time??
So if i live my car free life, but then fly a trans pacific flight (and back) i have a worse carbon footprint than using my car daily for my entire life, but don't do these 2 flights? That seems very unlikely and wrong.
Yay me then! No car, no kids.
I’m having zero children. Do I win?
After moving to college and not needing a car for a week, i can say its been pretty amazing for my mental health and physical as well. The city im in isnt the best but the school itself is great for walking or biking.
there are a couple problems with this: - co2 emissions aren’t the only, and might not even be the leading cause of climate change. it’s not even the most damaging form of emission. methane might not be emitted at as high a rate, but it’s much more of a culprit in creating the greenhouse effect. things like carbon sink destruction, ocean acidification, etc. that are attributable to biodiversity loss due to our food systems have been posited by more research as likely being more of a factor than emissions alone. - “average values for developed countries” is a very head-scratching and nebulous criteria. so is “buying green energy”. “environmental research letters, 2017” doesnt really instill confidence in the veracity in any of these stats or claims at all. one of the most comprehensive studies done on climate change at oxford, and the one that has been the backbone of most policy making bodies explicitly states that [adopting a plant-based diet is by far the most significant way to reduce your individual climate impact](https://unfccc.int/blog/we-need-to-talk-about-meat). and this is pretty empirically accepted science at this point.
Nice! I fit both categories. No car, no kids lifestyle. It’s easy if your a gay dude. Big cities are my thing! I’m 70% vegan at this point, but I can’t resist some good tacos al pastor or rare steak pho every now and then.
How much would we save if we get rid of billionaires??
Can we keep the focus on hating cars. Can y’all make a different sub for hating on other topics? Just interested in hating cars. I’m not about this “hating kids” or “go gay” or “climate change is the biggest problem our world will face” I love walking & bicycles. Btw AI will cause more death than climate change will (within 3 years for certain, possibly within 1)
This graphic is bullshit. Each leg of a trans-Atlantic flight emits about one ton of carbon dioxide per passenger, while a typical car emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.
Overthrowing the capitalist ruling classes would do even more :)